Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthew Garrett writes: > >> My insurance optionally covers employment disputes, accidents and >> housing issues. I don't have any cover that protects me from arbitrary >> legal cases. In any case, "Discriminates against poor people who have an >> insurance policy that covers legal cases in their home country but not >> elsewhere"? That's beginning to sound a bit fringe. > > It is considerably less fringe than "Choice of venue is > non-discriminatory because suitable lies allow anybody to sue you > anywhere over anything even with no license and only the cost changes > if you have to defend yourself in the other guy's home court because > of a software license."
I'd disagree, but I think that's a matter of opinion. > As you point out elsewhere, total fabrications can be invented to > support any claim, but DFSG freedom questions should be limited to > what the license imposes on or requires from users. What's the point in us worrying about licenses granting freedoms that can't actually be exercised in life? There is no "freedom not to be sued", so it's impossible for a license to contravene that. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
